Allas

Yes about 30% more cycles. Not 80% which you imply when you pull out your 1.77 vs 0.985 MHz comparision and by far not the "A8 is 2x faster than C64" which you often said already. EDIT: 30% when comparing PAL machines. When comparing NTSC machines the difference is 20%. It's not matter if 30% 20% 15% or 10% better, the point is there are 7000 extra cycles to do more programming. Considering a 160x200 graphic screen on Atari, because still can be optimized to save more cycles.

Yoomp is not what I'd call advanced. The code is less complex than what's needed for an average platformer. also we have seen this gameplay in the mid80s just in 2d already (in fact gameplay wise yoomp is 2d aswell just the display is more twisted...) out of possibilities? check the many c64 demos with similar tunels. I tried yoomp , and as "game" i didn't like it. Too slow. I really prefer the game play of Trailblazer (on both plateform). I don't like the visual also. Just matter of taste here. It is surely a great technical achiviement. But not my taste. And i'm pretty sure you can do this kind of game on C64. (of course not using the same technics , but what count it is the result not the way). Surely always there is a way to do. And maybe if you find a good trick, it could be make it with near feel. I have the same opinion on porting games as Turricans, Enforce, and other complex productions from C64 to Atari. Other way, I knew that story about "the fox and the grapes"....

Does not count if a Atari run 2x or 1.5x or 1.3 more faster than a C64. After all the waste for graphics, Atari have 7000 extra cycles per frame over C64 can get. It's a lot of additional programming can be done in there, and that's why Atari can do more advanced games as Yoomp! out of the possibilities of a C64.

This computer was launched on 1982 with C64, have SID, 16 colors, 1Mhz 6510, exactly like a C64 but with 2.5Kb of RAM.

I am a little lost, but... isn't a SuperCpu convert the C64 to a no-8bit computer. So, in this case the concept doesn't fit on a "best 8bit computer". Maybe, better extension are MIO plug and play hardware for Atari, and a VBXE 2 video card for Atari. In this way Atari keep the original 8bit status. In other way, how possible could be to install a SuperCpu for Atari? I have seen a couple of Atari on old years working with 65C816 CPU compatible with 6502 assembler.

Example: Green Beret (Atari or C64 version) On Atari it's easy to accommodate the collision hardware without pixel perfection.

Not exactly paddles, but this fun game can be played with an Atari ST mouse. It feels better. padnoid.zip Padnoid

Yes. The drives are programmable down to "encoded bits on disk" level. Yes, I know, but if the entire disk is in another format, how can the C64 load a file from it? Maybe it need to load the special manager from a "common C64 disk format"?

on c64: - load"$",8 is just using the command prompt on c64, like typing dir on msdos on pc. no dir listing is possible on atari from the prompt? whats so strange about this? - you dont have to boot DOS up, its in the ROM - you dont need BASIC cartridge to have BASIC, its in the ROM - you can have different DOSes (and BASICs). JiffyDOS was just mentioned. - BASIC is also the command prompt, and part of the OS, and DOS alltogether on the c64, so its pointless to disable it, any program can "disable" it (make the cpu read ram in place of basic rom) if it needs to, with 2 instructions. This seems like DOS loading Windows 3.1, Windows Millenium, Windows 95,... acceptable but not elegant. Can 64 work with other disk structure, with another FAT or Directory system? How could load a file if the diskette is on other format system? Is there any more practice OS than Atari QMEG on C64 machine?

Well for a CBM user it's also strange to use an Atari. CBM users are used to having all DOS options available without booting anything. Ok, most C64 users are used to those multifunction cartridges which also have DOS wedge extensions so the comparision is a bit unfair, but it was pretty much standard to have such a thing. The cart DOS extensions made it a hell lot of easier and faster to use the C64. Instead of typing BASIC commands, you simply used the F-keys and Cursor-keys. Action Replay type of carts worked like this: F3 for directory, F1 for load + run. If you pressed F1, it would simply load the first program on disk and run it. If you moved the cursor to a line in the directory and pressed F1, it would load that file and run it. I found this much easier to use than the DOS'es I have encountered on A8. ??? If you want to run a game from a game disk, then Atari only need a autobooteable faster menu. Less than 1 second to load, there are lots of menus quickly and fast to use. More easy, impossible. I bet if you give to a no-user the C64 with the cartridge, still there is a margin of problem to reach the game wanted. On Atari you can do DOS operations from BASIC on similar way than C64. But off course nobody fall in temptation to do this slowly practice.

Here are some screenshot captures from a NTSC tv

Thanks for the translation. It was interesting, i only hope some day ABBUC can be read for all Atarians.

vs Simple, but more density and more much

Atari density colors

well, we all know what I mean. so stop pretending you dont. thanks. well or maybe not. now try to dissect this definition: "built in mode is one which doesnt uses the cpu for timed register changes in synch with the rasterbeam to better the picture." good luck Basic gfxs ? mmm... what insane... well i don't know who had the idea, but here is it: Still Atari can do something that C64 can do it on this basic modes. 5 colors 160x200

yeah, indeed: freedom to choose from many modes which are inferior to the c64. let's just define built in modes: built in mode is one which doesnt uses the cpu to better the picture. both a8 and c64 has such modes. and c64 is better at it. and even if you throw cpu at it on a8, you are lagging behind. the c64 is already doing a game infront of the gfx screen with the same effort of the a8 trying to bring in more colors. Atari always use his CPU with any mode graphics created (ok, except with a complete blank screen, useful to accelerate calculations)

Atari doesn't have screen built in modes, only line modes. Believe or not, when you turn on the Atari, doesn't have any mode on it. There is no 320x200 or 320x240 or 160x200 or 192x200 screen modes, those screens must to be programmed on the Antic first.

it was not miscolored. the image was drawn for c64, there's no "original". its not a convert. then someone asked to show how it would look like on a8. I did. using the original. and it shows the huge difference between built in a8 and c64 gfxmodes indeed. looking above, let me ask you: why do you call the c64 one miscolored ? Why not try with a 47 Atari color screen? no flickering eh?

Few "ugly" c64 image with his "ugly" palette. . . . Finally... i think i like what is ugly! Most of those screens doesn't look exactly on my real C128. Despite, all of them have good draw, good painting, but terrible colors. This is like view Spectrum enhanced pictures. Why not sent simple draws, to avoid to disguise the real fact that C64 have only 16 colors (most of them ugly).

Don't even say "ugly" as long as you don't find a C-64 picture that doesn't consist mostly of violet and brown This really gets boring, man, everything C-64 fans bring as fine picture is violet-brown. thats ur personal preference, the fact remains: the c64 displays nicer pictures while sitting idle than a8 using up all its resources like crazy. That was funny, what do you want to say? Those C64 picture use all the graphical power, that a C64 can do. Simply, not use other resources, because whatever raster, hidden register, sprite trick doesn't collaborate with any color more after the 16th. That's all. Other way most of the C64 painting are using visual effects thanks to the great quality artist you have in your scene. Why not comparing more simple screens, as for example, game intro screens? This would be examine better the potential without "tricky visual effects" I'm not doubt you really like the C64 palette. After all these years seeing C64 pictures is natural. Spectrum users prefers a lot his palette color too, and I must to admit they have some really cool mixings.

It's a PAL only trick and it also works on an LCD screen. It's an effect which happens during PAL decoding, not during displaying. Ok, but you need a PAL machine. I never have seen these type of pictures. If I bought a PAL C64, i'm sure (for previously experience) the screen will flicker at my eyes. For more fair comparative, close that emulation PAL option on emulator. Atari screenshots works with artifact display off too.

Yup nice picture. I also liked the one from the Recall demo. By alternating 2 colors of the same luminance you can mix the chrominance on a PAL monitor. This can be done on C64 too since it has 7 pairs of same-luma-but-different-chroma colors. Here's a picture which uses that PAL feature: On A8 that features is also possible (that's why the 256 color mode works) but for normal palette it's not as useful because you can select chroma for each luma anyway. Good, but personally, i don't take serious this type of trick (on Atari and C64), because only works on PAL or NTSC (artifacts can do 18 fixed colors in 320x200 on Atari) and worse, those tricks not work on real LCD monitors of today.

when i count color in your snap , there are 7931 colors. It seems a graphic filter (may put by the emulator?) has been apply on it. Only have 29 colors, however you have here the xexcutable, http://atari.fandal.cz/detail.php?files_id=5980

All those picture looks great, but here there is 29 colors... who can do more?

That was the slogan of Jack Tramiel , did the same terrible movements on Atari. He didn't take care to expand the quality design on 8bit line, destroy the perfect 7800 line (who could be the better 8bit console, better than NES), and change the Amiga technology instead his own chunky tech ST line, very similar to C64 tech.